A discernible pattern is emerging in Chinese foreign policy, one that raises concerns about global stability: Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears to publicly advocate for peaceful resolutions to international conflicts while covertly aligning with some of the world’s most destabilizing entities.
In the Middle East, Beijing has taken a vocal stance in calling for an end to hostilities between Israel and Hamas. It purports to adopt a balanced approach toward the warring factions. However, in practice, the Chinese government is indirectly supporting Hamas, which, in turn, fuels acts of terrorism. Xi’s position on the Gaza conflict mirrors his stance on another global flashpoint, the Ukraine conflict. In both cases, Beijing professes principled neutrality and even launches peace initiatives while simultaneously deepening its ties with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
The underlying strategy in Beijing’s approach is to exploit these crises to undermine the United States and bolster China’s global leadership. To this end, Xi appears to lend support to the aggressors, placing blame on the United States for the ensuing chaos, and then positioning himself as a responsible peacemaker with superior solutions to the world’s problems. It is evident that China and Russia are collaborating in this endeavor; for instance, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi audaciously called for a ceasefire in Gaza during discussions with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, even as the Russian military was inflicting harm on Ukrainian civilians.
Officially, China’s leadership strives to appear impartial in the Gaza conflict, issuing generic statements, such as their condemnation of all forms of violence and attacks on civilians. However, Beijing conspicuously refrains from condemning Hamas for the atrocities committed against Israeli citizens on October 7, which triggered the ongoing crisis.
As hostilities have escalated, China’s stance has become increasingly unfavourable toward Israel. On October 14, just a week after the Hamas attack, Wang Yi asserted that Israel’s response had exceeded the bounds of self- defence. China’s ambassador to the United Nations defended the vetoing of a Security Council resolution sponsored by the United States, which called for humanitarian pauses in the fighting. The Chinese ambassador argued that the draft was “seriously out of balance” as it did not address the issue of Palestinian statehood, among other reasons. Interestingly, the Chinese ambassador also called for Israel to lift its Gaza blockade, without mentioning Hamas or urging the release of Israeli hostages.
China exhibits a certain lack of reservation when it comes to highlighting Western hypocrisy while simultaneously engaging in its own form of double- speak. Commentary in the state-owned China Daily criticizes the “double standard exhibited by many Western leaders” who condemn Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine while failing to hold Israel similarly accountable for the suffering caused by its Gaza blockade. Paradoxically, while China has previously championed the rights of Palestinians, it is embroiled in widespread human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, under the guise of an anti-terror campaign. Beijing has also categorically denied the national aspirations of various groups, including Tibetans, who inhabit territories deemed integral to China by the Communist Party.
The ultimate target of China’s actions, as usual, is the United States. Beijing aims to attribute responsibility for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Washington, using it as evidence of the United States’ diminished role as a global leader.
China’s leadership seemingly hopes that expressing solidarity with the Palestinian cause will win favour in the Arab world and advance its efforts to gain support in the Global South. However, the intricacies of the Middle East, a region that has confounded Washington for decades, are likely to pose challenges for Chinese diplomats who are relatively new to the region. While there is widespread support for the Palestinian cause, many Arab leaders consider
Hamas a terrorist organization. For instance, the United Arab Emirates has criticized Hamas for the October 7 attack more vehemently than China. Jonathan Fulton, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council specializing in China’s relations with the Middle East, observes that China’s attempt to position itself as the champion of those oppressed by the United States faces resistance, as not every Arab country shares this perspective. Consequently, China’s response may be somewhat ineffective.
China’s willingness and ability to act as a global peacemaker have been underwhelming. While Beijing has previously offered to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians, its diplomats appear to lack the influence required to bring the two sides to the negotiating table. Even before the current crisis, the Israelis, closely aligned with the United States, greeted Chinese overtures with skepticism. Now, China has adopted an overtly pro-Palestinian position, which one Israeli envoy described as “disturbing,” deepening Israeli distrust in China’s capacity to serve as an impartial mediator.
Xi Jinping does possess valuable relationships in the Middle East, which, if leveraged, could yield more positive outcomes. China successfully utilized its economic clout to facilitate a détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran earlier this year. China is a major purchaser of Iran’s oil exports, a fact that Beijing discreetly manages due to international sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
Tehran plays a significant role in the ongoing conflict, as the primary benefactor of entities like Hamas and Hezbollah, along with several regional militias that pose a threat to escalating the war. However, Xi does not seem to have effectively employed his influence to encourage Iran to de-escalate the crisis or prevent its intensification. Beijing could also collaborate with Egypt, another close political and economic partner, to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which China claims to be deeply concerned about. Yet, there is no evidence to suggest that such efforts have been made. A recent analysis by Trivium, a China- focused research firm, contends that Beijing’s “hands-off” approach to international affairs may be appealing during peaceful times but falls short when it comes to delivering security when it is most needed.
China appears to seek recognition for stating the obvious—preferring peace over war—without accepting the responsibilities or complexities involved in actively promoting peace. More significantly, Xi seems willing to risk global instability in the pursuit of his geopolitical ambitions. The approach he is adopting is a perilous one, not just for the international community but also for China itself, given its heavy reliance on energy imports from the Middle East. An escalation of the Gaza conflict into a broader regional war could be economically disastrous for China. The same argument applies to the broader dynamics that Xi seeks to disrupt. Further turmoil in the U.S.-led global order, which has historically facilitated China’s transformation into a major global power, would undermine the country’s economic progress. Nevertheless, Xi’s policies in relation to Gaza and Ukraine underscore his readiness to challenge the existing global order in favor of a China-centric world, irrespective of the probable long-term consequences.